Corpus-Paul

["John C. Hurd" <John.Hurd AT Squam.org>]

Frank Hughes has well summarized the usual arguments for considering 2
Thessalonians to be pseudonymous, and I have great respect for him and
for many others who hold this view.  The argument goes back to Wrede
among others.  However, I must say that I consider the argument to be
fatally flawed.  I also think that there are a number of things to be
said in favor of Paul as the author which I have not seen expressed by
other scholars.  The full presentation appears as the paper, "Concerning
the Authenticity of 2 Thessalonians", pp. 135-161 in my "The Earlier
Letters of Paul -- and Other Studies" (Frankfurt a.M.: Peter Lang,
1998).

One of the points I make there is that the argument from similarity is,
from the point of view of method, especially tricky.  What inevitably
results is a "heads-I-win; tails-you-lose" situation.  Anything about 2
Thess. which is similar to 1 Thess. is counted as evidence of "slavish
copying"; anything which seems dissimilar is taken as evidence of non
authenticity.

The normal argument in matters of literary attribution is to count
similarity as evidence of common authorship and dissimilarity as
evidence of different authors.  Even this straightforward line of
argument is frequently flawed.  Often scholars focus their attention on
a single document and create as long a list as possible of
dissimilarities with writings accepted as genuine.  Then they stand back
and say, "Gee whiz!  This cannot be by the same author as the others!"
(I call this the "Gee whiz" type of argument.)  There are notable
differences between any pair of pauline letters that one chooses.  A
single list of differences is not an argument.  One must make comparable
lists for each of the other letters in order to be able to say that a
given letter is so different that it probably is not genuine, i.e.,
there must be control comparisons.

As far as the similarities between 1 & 2 Thess. are concerned, they are
much exaggerated.  Many of the parallels are matters of epistolary
convention.  Further, epistolary analysis makes a distinction between a
"letter" and an "epistle."  A letter is a communication between parties
who are known to each other, and must not contain what the readers know
that the author knows that they know (not without apology, that is).
I.e., the writer must not seem to be telling his readers what they
already know.  Thus information vital to us as outsiders gets omitted.
An epistle, on the other hand, is an essay in the form of a letter and
is addressed to an audience unknown to the writer.  Thus an epistle must
contain all the information necessary to its understanding.  The
Pastoral Epistles are "epistles" in spite of the personal notes: their
argument is self-sufficient.  2 Thess., on the other hand, is a
"letter"; it is part of a conversation.  For example, who is this
mysterious "restrainer"?  The Thessalonians knew, but later readers did
not and do not.  I consider it highly unlikely that a later writer would
create an artificial "letter" in Paul's name.  What purpose would he
have that would not be better served by writing an epistle?

On April 2 I posted material on "Pauline Authorship" concerning method
and rigor (with bibliographic sources), but there was virtually no
response or effect on subsequent discussion.  Surely these matters are
important.  Devising scenarios about what might have been the case is
not evidence.

P.S., I would appreciate references for papyrus letters with a coda in
the handwriting of the one who dictated the body of the letter.  I have
not seen any.  I should ask John White, who collected copies of all the
letters of our period.

All the best!              --            John Hurd
:::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::
::  John C. Hurd                Internet: John.Hurd AT Squam.org
::  Professor Emeritus of New Testament
::  Trinity College in the University of Toronto